As some of you may know, there are a couple of substances which are classified by the US federal government under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (hence defined as having high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use) and yet allowed under specific conditions (a law in one case and a court ruling in another) to be used as religious sacraments by certain religious groups viz. mescaline-containing peyote cacti (by Native American Church) and DMT-containing ayahuasca brew by UDV.
Now comes a ruling in a case where the founders of a ‘church’, registered in 1994, were caught with 172 pounds of marijuana (they are not charged with dealing). The founders claimed that marijuana is a sacrament and hence under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, they ought to be exempt from prosecution. In the ruling, the judge holds that the religious belief of the defendants is not sincere and that the edifice of religion is being used as a pretext for “lifestyle choices”.
Now, in light of a remark I heard a fews week ago by President Bush that freedom of religion was a “basic right”, I like to pose a few questions
1)Should courts or third-parties be allowed to decide the ‘sincerity’ of someone’s beliefs?
2)Under what conditions should government be able to restrict the practice of alleged religion?
I’m not so much interested in exploring the particulars of this specific case, as the general topic. I was really piqued that courts are allowed to judge the ‘sincerity’ of someone’s religious beliefs. Had there been another justification, I probably wouldn’t have given it much thought.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, II Gyan II. It’s a tricky and fascinating case from several angles. On the face of it, Judge Herrara’s evaluation of the Church of Cognizance is ridiculous. We don’t know all of her statement, and she may have a deeper analysis. At this stage, she seems to have overstepped her authority with seven league boots. How does she know that the Quaintances are not sincere in their beliefs? Did she attend services?
I’m not a lawyer, and, although I’m a free-lance minister, I don’t claim to be a hotshot theologian. I wonder if Barry W. Lynn is aware of this case.
When the adherents of a religion blow themselves and others up after hearing sermons about sacrifice and virgins, it might be time to think about watching said adherents pretty carefully…
“1)Should courts or third-parties be allowed to decide the ‘sincerity’ of someone’s beliefs?”
Sincerity should not be the test at all. The law should be blind to beliefs. If drugs hurt innocents, then putting restrictions on them is good public policy. Whether aspirin or alcohol or opiates.
“2)Under what conditions should government be able to restrict the practice of alleged religion?”
All the time, as long as the laws are “religion -blind” (like color-blind). If there’s a noise ordinance, it should apply to all. In Richmond, the Islamics wanted to have loudspeakers in their minarets for calling the faithful at all hours, while at the same time bells were restricted to certain hours based on local complaints. The judge said one law for all, and I agree with that.
First of all, I favor legalization for all, with age restrictions, which would make this case completely moot. So for me to argue otherwise feels really odd.
My understanding is that one has to apply and receive federal approval to possess and use otherwise illegal substances in a religious setting, that only registered church members may partake, and that possession or use outside of the church service is still illegal for those members. If all that is true, then obviously these folks didn’t play within the system that they now want to protect them. That process is, I thought, what is supposed to be the testing ground for the sincerity of belief, not an after-the-arrest judicial process. If that is not the case, then nevermind.
Should the government have input as to the tenants of any faith? Barring harm to the nonconsenting (including children) I say no. And I don’t personally think marijuana creates harm. But our law as currently written says it does. So, unless they’re willing to risk the legal penalty, or wish to martyr themselves at the altar of legislative change, then they should not break the law.
So, back to the questions:
“1)Should courts or third-parties be allowed to decide the ‘sincerity’ of someone’s beliefs?”
I don’t know. It seems like if Snoop Dogg were to incorporate a Church of Chronic, we’d all be pretty skeptical. His history is clear, his motivation transparent and his devotion rightly suspect. Hiding a non-religious belief behind laws meant to protect religious belief seems not right somehow. If you want to smoke weed 'cause you like it, then fight for legalization because you like weed. Is that the case with this couple? I don’t know. I’d like to read their incorporation and 501c3 applications (if any), because that would help me make a more informed opinion.
“2)Under what conditions should government be able to restrict the practice of alleged religion?”
When those practices, whether motivated by sincerity or not, infringe on the rights of others. Coercion, physical abuse, marriage below the state’s age of consent, loud noises during quiet hours, physical barriers in public spaces, etc.
That’s odd since Muslims don’t issue the call to prayer “at all hours.” It’s five specific times a day. Bells were restricted due to complaints, which obviously means that the bells were ringing louder than the local noise ordinance permitted to begin with. So, either the resriction permitting bells to ring at certain hours should also permit the call to prayer or neither the call to prayer nor the bells should be above a certain decibel limit.
Does the judge question the validity of the church or the sincerity of the participants?
I know a lot of Catholics who’s sincerity can be questioned. This opens up a can of worms.
Would it be completely moot? I am not sure if a church can be prosecuted for supplying a minor with alcohol during communion…
It’s more than just harming the nonconsenting, though. It is also about obligations being put on third parties. I assume most of us have no problem with kosher/halal meals being available to prisoners. I think we would have a greater problem with accepting the requirements of the Church of the Filet Mignon, which required that to be served each day to its adherents.
That brings up the difference between Catholics who don’t follow the teaching of their church, i.e., John Kerry and Ted Kennedy both being Pro-choice is in direct conflict with the Catholic Church, yet, Muslims who are preached to in madrassaes (sp?) and blow themselves and others up are inline with the teaching of their church. …
Honestly, I don’t know what the Catholic church policy is on serving alcohol to minors, or what local law enforcement has done about it. In my state, at least, it’s legal for parents to serve their minors alcohol under their supervision, so perhaps there’s some loophole which would serve.
I haven’t given special meals much thought, but frankly, no, I don’t think I would support that, if such a church existed and had that as an actual tenant. But remember that the government is not required to provide accommodation for any and all religious requirements, but only those which are (much like ADA regs) possible to provide for with reasonable accommodation. What’s that mean? I’m not sure who decides, probably the warden or whomever watches the budget. If he can budget an extra 30% for half a dozen kosher meals, then that’s probably reasonable. 6000% more for fillet is not so reasonable. The rights of the other prisoners to adequate food (not to mention personal safety issues when they smell fillet and have to eat slop) can and would take precedence.
I’m sure members of the Church of Satan are not allowed to hold full Black Mass in prison, nor Wiccans carry an 11 inch athame (dagger) or Catholics to keep lighters and frankincense in their cells. Such things are not reasonably accommodatable while preserving the safety of the other prisoners and staff. Their right to personal safety is more important than the religious expression of the minority.
As the article says, the “1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act…says the government needs to justify any action that would substantially burden people from practicing their faith.” Justify. They *can *burden people, but it has to be justifiable to a judge. I think your examples (and the others I gave), would be justifiable, at least in a special case like a prison, but IANAL.
Well, generally speaking, in criminal cases there are many legal arguments/defenses which do depend on a party’s mens rea, which is an issue for the finder of fact (judge or jury, as the case may be). And in contract cases, the question of whether the parties truly reached a “meeting of the minds” is likewise likewise a relevant issue to be determined by the finder of fact.
So, generally speaking, yeah, unless we want to change some very basic things about the assumptions underlying Anglo-American common law.
When it involves 172 pounds of MJ. Even for ritual use, that seems just a wee bit excessive.
One of the best ways to get the book thrown at you is to obey the letter of the law while defeating the spirit. An example being an arcade that has prize dispensing games, perfectly legal. Open a store next door that happens to buy/sell various goods, including the prizes from the arcade next door, perfectly legal.
However when vice figures out that this little circle jerk is designed to allow arcade customers to recieve cash in exchange for their prizes you have effectively created a casino that would be illegal in most jurisdictions.
Similar here. If they had a pound, we probably would never have heard about this, 172 uh, for what, 10 year supply.
It actually was a real case, btw - though I don’t know if I have the name of the Church right.
RFRA was declared at least partly unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores. This is what is confusing me about this case. There is RFRA II, which attempted to be more circumspect, and applies to places such as prisons. They are a response to Smith v Employment Division, which allowed restrictions on religious practice as long as they were general - you could not target a particular religious practice. The only time I believe that legislation has been overturned because it was seen as a sham to attack a particular religion was in Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, where a Florida law against some form of method of killing animals was overturned as it was pretty clear it existed only to hinder the practice of Santaria.
The problem with Employment Division (where Scalia said you can deny unemployment benefits to someone who takes drugs for religious reasons, as the restriction on taking drugs is a general one), apart from the fact that, IMHO, it flies in the face of Sherbert v Verner (not that that is a great decision either from a coherency viewpoint), is that it inherently prefers the majority religion. By removing protection from all religious practice, it may appear to be fair handed (and was attacked by the religious right pretty heavily - I have heard it said that it cost Fat Tony the chance to become Chief Justice). But the problem is, no one is going to support a ban on communion wine, for example, because Christianity is the majoritarian religion. What it allows is generally applicable laws, such as restrictions on slaughterhouses, which affect minority religions to a much greater degree. And the purpose of the First Amendment’s religious protections, I’d argue, were to protect minority religions from government interference - the majority ones don’t need that help.
On the prison stuff, you are pretty much right. But there is a consideration of whether the belief is truly held. I believe the test is as follows: the court may not look as to the credibility of the belief, but they can look as to how much the person follows it. I know I came across some asylum cases where a supposed convert to Christianity from Islam (similar to the case I handled) had the degree of his beliefs challenged by an accusation that he still refused to eat pork/drink alcohol. The argument against this, of course, was that it was a cultural factor not a religous one… Anyway, courts can and do look to sincerity of belief.
Prisoners have a lot of free time, and access to law books. Supposedly inventing religions is one of the fun things people do to fill their time. The balancing test that is used is the cost to the prison against the effect on the person of not satisfying the religious “need.” Now, clearly forcing a devout Muslim to eat non-Halal food is a pretty major cost. Safety issues play very large in this as well, as you rightly say. However, it is necessary to look to see how important the belief is to the person to determine on which side of the balancing test to come down.
It does leave a horrible taste in the mouth, I agree - I don’t like the government determining what is a religion or who is religious. I’m not sure there is a clean solution to this - my gut tells me that they should protect freedom of belief, and that practice is not protected at all, but that leads to huge issues on what practice is actually necessary for belief.
There are many chances for me to be wrong in this post, but I’ll press on regardless. In my very limited contact with Catholic churches, the unleaven bread is laid directly on the parishioner’s tongue, but the wine is consumed only by the priest. He is receiving it as a proxy for the congregation.
In a variety of Protestant churches where I have seen the service, the bread and grape juice were passed around on trays among the pews, rather than going from the minister’s hand to the worshiper’s tongue. Same body and blood thing going on, but there’s no alcohol.
The Presbyterian church where I grew up insisted on using unleaven bread for the communion. They got from a Kosher bakery.
Well, I haven’t been to non-Catholic communion since moving to the States, but back in the UK they always used real wine (though watered) and the punter always got a slurp. I am always surprised at weddings in Catholic Churches to see that the priest keeps the good stuff to himself up there.